home

The Congressional Response to Anger

By TChris, Section Huricanes Katrina and Rita
Posted on Tue Sep 06, 2005 at 07:50:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Elected Republicans may still have the president's back, but they can't afford to ignore anger like this:

"Bureaucracy has murdered people in the greater New Orleans area. And bureaucracy needs to stand trial before Congress today," Jefferson Parish president Aaron Broussard said on CBS' The Early Show. "So I'm asking Congress, please investigate this now. Take whatever idiot they have at the top of whatever agency and give me a better idiot. Give me a caring idiot. Give me a sensitive idiot. Just don't give me the same idiot."

This article lists some of the hearings that will soon be held in the House and Senate to assess -- as has been the president's mantra during the past couple of days -- "what went wrong and what went right." Justifiable anger has fueled the demand for a candid inquiry into the failings of the Bush administration, oversight notably absent from the passive, stonewalling majority party in recent years.

It's a frenzy President Bush hasn't faced from a Congress controlled for most of his tenure by allies. Through terrorism, war and the occasional scandal, they have protected his administration from the sort of pointed grilling lawmakers are planning over the coming days and weeks.
...
House and Senate Republican leaders have rarely allowed embarrassing oversight hearings in recent years, routinely brushing aside Democratic demands on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, and on allegations of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. It took an outcry from victims' families to jump-start the Sept. 11 commission.
...
But the shortcomings involving Katrina have been too overt and terrible to ignore, [Joel Aberbach] said, even for congressional stalwarts who have kept their troops disciplined for years.

Will the hearings and investigations lead to the truth? Will the president finally admit that his adminstration is imperfect? Will our elected representatives demand accountability from the administration? Will they actually, finally, do their jobs?

< FEMA blocks dead body examination in NOLA? See "Larry King Live" on Wednesday for answers | R.I.P. Bob Denver >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Congressional Response to Anger | 44 comments (44 topical)
    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    Posts like this one make me wonder about TChris. For instance, they make me wonder if he's seen this picture of flooded busses in New Orleans, and whether he's read the offical preparedness plan for New Orleans. Sadly, the first TChris will hear of those will likely be at the hearings mentioned above. I rather suspect that he'll be chanting "la la la" really loudly at that point. Sure, FEMA was slow - inexcusably slow. But that wouldn't have been as large a problem if Nagin and Blanco had done their jobs. But this is one of the "never speak evil of Democrats" sites, so no chance of that being recognized. I suppose I should be thankful that, unlike Atrios and Kos, this site hasn't descended into a vast well of 7th grade level profanity.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    No way. They know how to make believe if they are forced to as with the 9/11 commission hearings. Those were a joke. Condi fillabustering indignantly and then after much ado Bush agreed to testify but not w/o Cheney by his side for only 15 minutes. They committee wil be co-chaired by Man on Dog Santorum and Dennis Hastert. The rest will be The 10 least popular Senators: 90. Nelson (D-FL) 91. Sununu (R-NH) 92. Dayton (D-MN) 93. Santorum (R-PA) 94. DeWine (R-OH) 95. Inhofe (R-OK) 96. Coburn (R-OK) 97. Martinez (R-FL) 98. Burr (R-NC) 99. Lautenberg (D-NJ) 100. Cornyn (R-TX) That should help those on the bottom to regain their vigor. Six months of hearings. Not open to the public due to recently passed patriot act laws reflecting new security concerns enacted after the recent refugee looting in NO. We now have domestic insurgents. The troops are coming home.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    JR...The hundreds dead in Mississippi lead me to believe you could also find some photos of flooded buses and a lack of a plan in Mississippi, too? Don't EVER get caught speaking ill of a fellow Repuke, tho. Your hypocrisy smells like New Orleans floodwater about now.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    We wouldn't want any of the local democrats to be held accountable though, now would we?

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#5)
    by yudel on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    Sure, by all mean hold the local accountable. But the thing is, I don't pay their salaries. I do pay the President's. And if he had simply put together a conference call the day before the Storm, when those of us in blogland with nothing better to do were reloading reports from wunderground every fifteen minutes, he could have asked some simple questions:
    Are the city, the state and the feds on the same page? What are the evacuation plans? What about the people who don't have cars? The Astrodome? How many days of food and water do you have? Who will police 20,000 people?
    But he didn't ask those questions. I would have asked those questions. You would have asked those questions. Anyone with any management ability -- let alone pulling down a $400k salary -- would have asked those questions. But Dubya didn't ask those questions. As President, he could have asked those questions, and done the best he could with the country's resources. But Dubya didn't ask those questions. And as a result of his incompetence -- or rather, of my employee's incompetence -- hundreds of people, if not more, died.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    Ernie - Show me the pictures and I'll show you the comment. If you want a timeline this site gives you one. You may note that the Governor declared a state of emergancy on 8/27 and Bush immediately ordered FEMA to release federal aid. Anyway you cut it, Bush was waiting on Blanco.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    yudel - I suspect he asked those questions. Problem is, he couldn't do anything about it. Do you understand that last sentence? In our system, the President must wait for the Governor, or just sieze power. Which do you want?

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#8)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    Elected Republicans may still have the president's back, but they can't afford to ignore anger like this:
    oh please! of course they can, and will, as long as they are the majority party. boys kissing boys still scares the the daylights out of their lower socio-economic base, and the estate tax drives their wealthy supporters into a frenzy. all else, even the possibility of nuclear/biological annihalation, pales besides this. hey, want to bet money that some of the dead in NO were the famous bourbon st. female impersonators? want to bet more money that the now destroyed low income housing will be rebuilt as expensive high rise apts., or condos, with maybe a 5-star hotel thrown in for good measure? for the republican base, katrina worked out rather nicely. the claim that bush's non-response to the crisis was race based is nonsense. it was, i submit, class based. had a similar event occured in appalachia, with a large, poor, white population, in similar dire straits, he would have responded in the same detached manner. i submit that the only color that grabs his attention is green, and i ain't talking no martians!

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    Cpinva-He has refused to meet with the NAACP since he has been in office. Kinda sends a message. Yes class war but most of the victims are black, and poor... oh and democrats.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#10)
    by yudel on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    PPJ says:
    I suspect he asked those questions. Problem is, he couldn't do anything about it. Do you understand that last sentence? In our system, the President must wait for the Governor, or just sieze power. Which do you want?
    Did he, now? Here's what your timeline says:
    President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation
    Doesn't sound like questioning, does it? And I just love the portrayal of Bush as too bound by red-tape to save lives. Who knew that we elected another wimp as president?

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    Show me the pictures and I'll show you the comment.
    Well the pics may be hard to come by since they got hit with a 29 foot storm surge...which pretty much swept things clean. But I haven't been able to find any evidence that Misissisippi's evacuation was any better than Louisiana's. Or the wait for Bush was any shorter after the storm went through. Have you? Read this story. (may need to register)
    Hogan, who owns a wrecker service, saved his mother from the rising waters by lifting her onto the roof of his tow truck, only to watch her die two days later in a chair under their tent. They still don't know where authorities took her body, and they have no idea when she can be buried.
    Are you willing to blame Haley Barbour for not giving Bush permission to take control, etc. etc. If not, why not?
    If you want a timeline this site gives you one.
    rightwingnuthouse.com? Hey, I guess they are about as reliable as the Washington Post, eh?

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#12)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    Are you willing to blame Haley Barbour for not giving Bush permission to take control, etc. etc. If not, why not?
    Don't bother looking for PPJ again on this thread.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    It's not about the local Dems, or even one particular party. It's about Bush: 1) Hiring unskilled incompetants for critical jobs. 2) Transfering two out of every five Louisiana National Guard to a foreign war based on lies. 3) Cutting ACE's funding for Louisiana by 40%. 4) Removing the FEMA Director from the Cabinet. NOTHING that James 'High-Collar' Robertson wants to claim about this disaster IN ANY WAY relieves Bush (and his toadies in Congress) from direct and sole responsibility for these bizarre and negligent policies, which were GUARANTEED to cause a great loss of life when the next big one came around. All this while wrapping himself in a 'national security' state that takes away freedoms, but doesn't actually protect the country, at all.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#14)
    by bad Jim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    Yudel, it appears that Bush was in a conference call on August 28 with the chief of the National Hurricane Center. Chertoff and Brown got the same briefing. They knew beforehand just how bad it could be. They have no excuses. (from Talking Points Memo)

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    I know it's verboten to suggest that the elected officials of Louisiana and New Orleans share any of the responsibility for the woeful response to Katrina, but anyone truly interested in the full story should read this. A few excerpts of particular interest: "The city's evacuation plan states: "The city of New Orleans will utilize all available resources to quickly and safely evacuate threatened areas." But even though the city has enough school and transit buses to evacuate 12,000 citizens per fleet run, the mayor did not use them." "The New Orleans contingency plan is still, as of this writing, on the city's Web site, and states: "The safe evacuation of threatened populations is one of the principle [sic] reasons for developing a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan." But the plan was apparently ignored." "The federal government does not have the authority to intervene in a state emergency without the request of a governor. President Bush declared an emergency prior to Katrina hitting New Orleans, so the only action needed for federal assistance was for Gov. Blanco to request the specific type of assistance she needed. She failed to send a timely request for specific aid."

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    I see JimakaPPJ hasn't got tired of repeating the lie about when the governor declared a state of emergency. It was August 26th. Hurricane Katrina-Our Experiences by Larry Bradshaw and Lorrie Beth Slonsky. These are two of the people who were attending a convention in New Orleans the weekend of the hurricane. (As far anyone can tell, this account is probably genuine: these are the names of two EMT professionals from California, and there was an EMT conference in New Orleans just before the disaster.) Their account is chilling. Read it. Two related posts: What gives with FEMA? Am I the only one wondering if that doesn't that go beyond incompetence? and the little black dress of political reform.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    Jesurgislac:
    I see JimakaPPJ hasn't got tired of repeating the lie about when the governor declared a state of emergency. It was August 26th.
    “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” —George W. Bush, May 24, 2005 Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard(on FEMA): Wal-Mart deliver[d] three trucks of water, trailer trucks of water. FEMA turned them back. They said we didn't need them. This was a week ago. FEMA--we had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a Coast Guard vessel docked in my parish. The Coast Guard said, "Come get the fuel right away." When we got there with our trucks, they got a word. "FEMA says don't give you the fuel." Yesterday--yesterday--FEMA comes in and cuts all of our emergency communication lines. They cut them without notice. White House communications director Dan Bartlett: “If we focused more of our attention on decisions that have already been made, rather than those before us, there’s potential for making far greater mistakes…"
    Look George, if we say this right, in a backhanded way, we can look like regular good ole' boys who admit that mistakes can occur, without really admitting we made any... It'll make you look like a reasonable, concerned father figure focused on leading his children out of the mess they've got themselves into, since it would just break your heart to see any more of 'em hurt themselves!" Sh*t, george! It's perfect... they'll swallow it, sinker 'n all! I know it! Just keep that sheepish look on your face... Here... have another drink! ...yer buddy, Karl
    Sigh... How's the foot, Jim?

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” —George W. Bush, May 24, 2005
    Isn't it just so heartwarming that George has his nose to the grindstone, and works real hard at honing his skills? 'specially in the most important parts of his job, huh Jim? Ah'm jus' so proud uh that boy! Ah could jus' kiss 'im!

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    edger - Quit pretending on the foot thing. You were suggesting that I commit suicide. J is correct, as shown here the Governor declared on the 26th, wrote a letter ro Bush, and he declared an emergancy in the morning of the 27th. Evidently she was unaware that Governors can call. Perhaps she did. Perhaps she faxed. Either way there is no delay on the Fed side. The question as to why the mandatory evacuation was not declared until 8/28 is still unanswerered. Yudel - Believe it or not, the President just can't walk in and tell a governor what must be done. If that's being a wimp, it is also following the constitution. Ernie - No pictures? Storm surge? Didn't that happen in both locations? I think two things are different. First, NO flooded. Secondly, looters and criminals were shooting at police and rescue teams. We seem to forget that was one of the reasons things slowed down. The police, and the local government, lost control of the city. BTW - Do you happen to know when MS declared an emergancy and requested the Feds?? BTW - If you have corrections, why don't you send'em in to the site? My guess is you have none.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    Jim: Quit pretending on the foot thing. Who, me??? "in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in" ---Dubya Have a wonderful day, Jim...I'm off to work. Try not to hurt yourself today, huh?

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    Sorry 'bout the broken link above, Jim. I knew you'd want to read the whole thing, to get as deep an understanding as possible. Have a day... Bush Job Approval

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    Ernie - No pictures? Storm surge? Didn't that happen in both locations? I think two things are different.
    I found a site that has aerial photos of some of the Mississippi damage. After looking through a couple (click on the black boxes and then use the zoom feature) I found this: MISSISSIPPI SCHOOL BUSSES SITTING IDLE So why didn't Haley Barbour use those school busses to get people evacuated? Come on, Jim...let's be fair, school busses are school busses. How was the Mississippi response any different from the one in Louisiana?
    Secondly, looters and criminals were shooting at police and rescue teams. We seem to forget that was one of the reasons things slowed down. The police, and the local government, lost control of the city.
    So what was the excuse for that guy's mom being left for two days to die in Mississippi? Where was Haley? Where was George?

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    First, NO flooded.
    I forgot to address this point in the last post. Jim, please explain how flooding is different from storm surge and why that would make a difference as far as an evacuation was concerned. Thanks.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#25)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    PPJ, et al., here's another timeline for ya.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    Posted by Paul in LA at September 7, 2005 01:51 AM It's not about the local Dems, or even one particular party. It's about Bush: 1) Hiring unskilled incompetants for critical jobs. 2) Transfering two out of every five Louisiana National Guard to a foreign war based on lies. 3) Cutting ACE's funding for Louisiana by 40%. 4) Removing the FEMA Director from the Cabinet. NOTHING that James 'High-Collar' Robertson wants to claim about this disaster IN ANY WAY relieves Bush (and his toadies in Congress) from direct and sole responsibility for these bizarre and negligent policies, which were GUARANTEED to cause a great loss of life when the next big one came around.
    One more time: "It's NOT about the "team", it IS about the "leader"! Keep on repeating this till they choke on it... ------ “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” —George W. Bush, May 24, 2005

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    The Feds were waiting on the state? Not according to the PDF file sitting at the DHS site with the national relief plan, adopter December 2004. Pity, I always thought you Southern Lads were better shots than that. Edger- Thanks for the links.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    errr...adopted December 2004.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    BTW, for all of Jim's huffing and puffing that the d.o.e. wasn't issued until 8/27....this document from the state of LA would disagree. What a surprise. Can't wait to see it try to spin this.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    Oh my...the gulf coast states also requested federal troops on 8/26, at least, according the this DOD transcript from 9/1. See the passage:
    GEN. HONORÉ: Yes, sir. The process starts, sir, in this particular event, with a request Friday of last week, as the approximate date for defense coordinating offices to be established in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. Those were established in those states over Friday and Saturday.
    There's plenty of blame on this at all levels local to the oval office. Why do the Busheviks seem to no longer believe that in the oval office "The Buck Stops Here"?

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    Edger- Thanks for the links.
    You're welcome... whatever little I can do...

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#32)
    by Deb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    Congress will not investigate per Tom DeLay

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    The problem is that rational people are going to blame all levels of government, not just try to tar Bush and Company. The incompetence of the first line of safety is clear and strained everything that followed. I suspect the inherent corruption of Louisiana will also have an impact on people's perceptions. So, much like the Sheehan fiasco, the average person will have much more sense than the average poster here.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#34)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    Hello all...havent blogged much lately b/c i've been busy at the rec center in my east tx home town. The stories I have heard is that for the first three or four days the only rescues were carried out by regular citizens. They were rescued and then taken as far as the civilians that plucked them out of the devistation could go. Then they were on their own against looters and cops alike. Many of them began to not trust the cops any more than the looters. What I witnessed firsthand though was the utter and complete lack of communication throughout the whole thing. Even when all were out of the convention center and the superdome, nobody knew where to send anybody or where anybody was going. We were told several times that we would be getting a busload of evacuees within the hour. That was only true about 20% of the time. We found out yesterday that on saturday night sept 3 many of the buses we were supposed to get didnt show up b/c they thought we were full. There were no evacuees there at the time. Simply put, it seems the feds and local govt either had no plan or had no idea what the hell they were doing. The arguments about whose fault it was, feds, city or state, are all misdirected. It doesnt matter. The problem is the beaurocricy in general. Too many people to go through when we had too many to get to.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    Ernie writes:
    Jim, please explain how flooding is different from storm surge and why that would make a difference as far as an evacuation was concerned. Thanks.
    Surely you kid us. Right? Oh well. Storm surge happens during the hurricane and is a relatively quick event. i.e. It comes and goes. Flooding occurs because of a multiple events. Rain, storm surge, poor drainage, levees being broken. Typically flooding takes quite a while to cease, especially if the flooded area, as is NO, lower than the surrounding areas. AKA creek, stream, river, lake, sea and ocean. Take this to the bank. Water flows down hill. Now. Why didn’t the MS school busses get used? I don’t know. Question: Was this area issued a mandatory evacuation? Again, I don’t know. I do know that the LA Governor and the NO mayor issued a mandatory evacuation on the morning of 8/28. Why the mayor didn’t direct people who had no transportation to the busses, I don’t know. Instead he sent them to the Superdome. This we do know. So Ernie, tell us about MS. Was the evacuation mandatory? If so, when was it issued? I would really like to know. BWT – Since I am not a Repub, I really give a flip about Barbour. Since I am not a Demo, same for Blanco. Adept – You’re kinda late.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    It's NOT about the "team"... It IS about the "leader". “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” —George W. Bush, May 24, 2005

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#37)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    bush stayed on vacation, condi stayed on vacation, cheney stayed on vacation; somehow as soon as they got back an incredible mobilization took place ... to save bush's a$$. I predict the WH will do everything possible to block an independent commission, until it is inevitable, and then stonewall it.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    Adept – You’re kinda late.
    Better Late like me, than caught out as an outright liar like you. Southern boy needs some target practice. He can't seem to hit anything these days. Except his foot. Thanks edger. ;)

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    again, do the Bush blinders make you unable to see the failures of state and local government? is it taboo to point out those failures because the end result may marginally improve bush's response to the catastrophe? are you so deluded as to think that the government in NO and LA responded properly or adequately?

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#41)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    This whole thing was a mess b/c our government was not designed to act quickly. It is designed to check itself and that's what happened. Too many people along the ladder of beaurocracy. What baffles me is that NO has been trying to let the govt know that a cat. 5 would be an enormous disaster, but nobody acted on it. NO officials took a report to wash dc to try to get a plan started in case of such an event, but no action was taken. "Why not?" you may ask. Because they were too busy coming up with a bunch of bs laws and sticking their noses where they dont belong.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#42)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    To illustrate a point, the hearings about steroids in baseball...Why are they having hearings about that instead of about how to deal with this sort of thing in case it happens?

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    adept - If you can quit defending LA, you might want to consider them doing this:
    I saw the woman who was the spokesperson for the Red Cross on tonight's Shepard Smith Report. She said on that interview that the Louisiana "STATE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPT." stopped them from going to the Superdome in the immediate aftermath. I was shocked. Kent Anderson writes: Your story on the red cross being barred from nola was confirmed wed morning by an official spokesperson of the red cross on the diane ream npr show. a caller inquired if it was true and she (the spokesman) replied unequivocally that it was true. UPDATE: David Kolbe sends a link: A Red Cross official, Carol Miller, said on NPR's Diane Rehm show this morning that the Red Cross was told not to provide aid at the Superdome by the Louisiana, not U.S., Department of Homeland Security.
    Link BTW - I acknowledged my mistake, and corrected it. Guess in your book that counts as lying. If you were some people I might be concerned, that I am not shouldn't surprise you. As for sweet little edger, he suggested a few days back that that I shoot myself, while cowering in the corner muttering that he would probably be banned. He later tried to change it to shoot myself in the foot, but that dog, as Dan Rather said, won't hunt. Oh well and so what. What a sweet bunch of people you are. Now run off an try to disprove the Red Cross story. I must keep at least five of you busy worrying over my comments.

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    Ernie - You were concenced with why MS was, apparently, doing better than LA in all of this. Well, maybe they are just easier to work with.
    BAY ST. LOUIS, Miss. The first patient at the state-of-the-art mobile hospital designed for disasters was a puppy. The dog was dehydrated and brought in by hurricane survivors living in a tent city. But it wasn't very long before suffering human patients found their way into the remarkable medical center set up in the parking lot of a flooded Kmart. In the first 16 hours, doctors treated about 100 people: nasty head wounds, car crash victims, cuts from storm debris, dehydration. With such demand, it is hard to imagine that the doctors weren't allowed to set up shop in Louisiana, their original destination. They were stymied by red tape there. "Mississippi stepped up and said if they don't want you, we'll take you," Dr. Thomas Blackwell, medical director of the hospital and an emergency doctor at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C., said Monday. He said the delay in getting deployed was a dispute with Louisiana over what they'd be allowed to do...
    Link

    Re: The Congressional Response to Anger (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:28 PM EST
    Why were they talking with Lousiana? The disaster authority had already passed to Homeland Security, and YOU KNOW IT, McJim.

    The Congressional Response to Anger | 44 comments (44 topical)